LON/00AN/LSC/2021/0392 — service charge decision
In LON/00AN/LSC/2021/0392, decided 21 March 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 22 disputed service charge items at 85, 87A and 87B, Waterford Road, London, SW6 2ET and reached a mixed result: 16 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 85, 87A and 87B, Waterford Road, London, SW6 2ET
Decision date: 21 March 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2020) | £7,239.73 | £3,880 | Reduced | Insurance not market tested, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | £6,265.16 | £2,588 | Reduced | Insurance not market tested, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2021) | £1,501.10 | £928.20 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2019) | £1,252.24 | £1,252.24 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2020) | £1,140.24 | £1,140.24 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019) | £435.60 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2020) | £580.80 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2021) | £580.80 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | £270 | £180 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2020) | £300 | £180 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2020) | £350 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £456 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £1,098 | £750 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Other charges (2021) | £1,001.46 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2021) | £480 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2021) | £970.20 | £733 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021) | £360 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2021) | £36 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2019) | £7,049.40 | £7,049.40 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2020) | £522 | £522 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2021) | £7,150.80 | £7,150.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £1,347.89 | £1,347.89 | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Respondent has provided no evidence of the steps that it took to test the market or any explanation for the additional premium.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the sums charged for 2020 and 2021 are excessive and cap these at £3,880 per annum.”
“the Respondent has provided no explanation as to why the charge should have increased to £1,501.10 for 2021, when the service would only have been provided for 10 months. No invoices have been provided.”
“The leases impose the obligation on the tenants to clean the windows. The Respondent has adduced no sufficient evidence that they failed to do so.”
“The leases impose the obligation on the tenants to clean the windows.”
“The leases impose the obligation on the tenants to clean the windows.”
“There have been unacceptable delays in progressing this case to a hearing. This largely reflects the conduct of the Respondent.”
“The Respondent did not provide an index. The responses in the Scott Schedule purport to refer to documents in the bundle. It is difficult to find these. Indeed, it is apparent that a number of these documents have not been included.”
“This purports to include visits between 5 November 2021 and 11 February 2022, These dates are all after the enfranchisement. It is difficult to understand how they could have taken photos during this period as they had no access to the Building.”
“The Respondent has failed to explain why it could not arrange for alternative representation. Mr Gurvits has not made any witness statement. There was therefore no need for him to attend.”
This summary is assembled from the structured record of the published decision; amounts appear only where the tribunal stated them. Always rely on the full decision itself.